Judges as Cherry Pickers of Fact?

[renfred]

Originally Posted by Pete

Did you by any chance read the whole document or did you just cherry pick the part you wanted?

You said it, not me.

I'll leave the cherry picking of material fact as well as the aberration of undisputed, uncontroverted material fact to Judge Karen H. Abrams and her judicial colleagues who are willing to perpetuate these aberrations at the expense of the truth and the proper administration of justice.

The motivation for consciously and deliberately fabricating the factual record in a case? Rent money? The career of a local settlement attorney who is part of the inner circle? The possibility of reprimand and/or sanctions? Judicial collegiality at its worst?

It wouldn't be fair for me to speculate.

The degree of respect that I have for an individual judge is equal to that judge's degree of respect for the legal system and the ethical principles that are inherent with their position of public trust. I think your average citizen feels the same way.

[cwo_ghwebb]

Originally Posted by renfred

You said it, not me.

I'll leave the cherry picking of material fact as well as the aberration of undisputed, uncontroverted material fact to Judge Karen H. Abrams and her judicial colleagues who are willing to perpetuate these aberrations at the expense of the truth and the proper administration of justice.

The motivation for consciously and deliberately fabricating the factual record in a case? Rent money? The career of a local settlement attorney who is part of the inner circle? The possibility of reprimand and/or sanctions? Judicial collegiality at its worst?

It wouldn't be fair for me to speculate.

The degree of respect that I have for an individual judge is equal to that judge's degree of respect for the legal system and the ethical principles that are inherent with their position of public trust. I think your average citizen feels the same way.

Wow! Had to read that twice (put on my glasses the second time). If this is true, it's a problem.

[vraiblonde]

Originally Posted by cwo_ghwebb

Wow! Had to read that twice (put on my glasses the second time). If this is true, it's a problem.

Operative sentence.

Renfred has it in for Karen Abrams for some reason, and thinks it's a very big deal that she rents her old office space to an attorney. He thinks that when this attorney goes before Judge Abrams, she'll give him special consideration.

So far there is no evidence that Judge Abrams has ever done any such thing, but Renfred isn't letting that stop him. He's SURE Judge Abrams is being unethical and, darn it, he's going to ferret it out if it takes his whole lifetime to do it.

[cwo_ghwebb]

Originally Posted by vraiblonde

Operative sentence.

Renfred has it in for Karen Abrams for some reason, and thinks it's a very big deal that she rents her old office space to an attorney. He thinks that when this attorney goes before Judge Abrams, she'll give him special consideration.

So far there is no evidence that Judge Abrams has ever done any such thing, but Renfred isn't letting that stop him. He's SURE Judge Abrams is being unethical and, darn it, he's going to ferret it out if it takes his whole lifetime to do it.

I wouldn't know either way. I'm just trying to make sure I don't get in front of ANY judge for any reason!

[vraiblonde]

Originally Posted by cwo_ghwebb

I'm just trying to make sure I don't get in front of ANY judge for any reason!

That's one of my own personal goals as well.

[renfred]

Originally Posted by vraiblonde

Operative sentence.

Renfred has it in for Karen Abrams for some reason, and thinks it's a very big deal that she rents her old office space to an attorney. He thinks that when this attorney goes before Judge Abrams, she'll give him special consideration.

So far there is no evidence that Judge Abrams has ever done any such thing, but Renfred isn't letting that stop him. He's SURE Judge Abrams is being unethical and, darn it, he's going to ferret it out if it takes his whole lifetime to do it.

The issue you are referring to has recently(09-25-2007) been considered by the Maryland Judicial Ethics Committee. The published opinion is available at their website:

http://www.courts.state.md.us/ethics/pdfs/2007_10.pdf

"Disclosure and/or Recusal of Judge Who Leases Property to a Lawyer Who Appears Before the Judge

Issue: Is a judge required to disclose the nature of the relationship and/or recuse himself/herself from cases involving an attorney who leases office space from the judge?

Answer: A judge must disclose the nature of the relationship to the parties and their clients so that the parties may have a chance to object or waive their objections. If the parties do not agree to waive the judge’s disqualification, the judge should recuse himself/herself unless there are compelling circumstances to the contrary."

Now that it has been established by the MD Judicial Ethics Committee that her conduct is not acceptable, and will no longer be tolerated, this new thread contemplates a separate but related topic.

[greyhound]

Judges & Lawyers go out to lunch and dinner together on a regulat basis, even the ones who are in cases together.

[ImnoMensa]

Originally Posted by vraiblonde

Operative sentence.

Renfred has it in for Karen Abrams for some reason, and thinks it's a very big deal that she rents her old office space to an attorney. He thinks that when this attorney goes before Judge Abrams, she'll give him special consideration.

So far there is no evidence that Judge Abrams has ever done any such thing, but Renfred isn't letting that stop him. He's SURE Judge Abrams is being unethical and, darn it, he's going to ferret it out if it takes his whole lifetime to do it.

I can't help but think that Judge Abrams ruled against him for some reason and he is taking his best shot. I dont see the big deal here,but he is about to have a hemmhorage over this. Maybe now that we see the ruling he can go somewhere and get off on it, have his pathetic revenge ,and move on with his life.

[cwo_ghwebb]

Originally Posted by I'mno Mensa

I can't help but think that Judge Abrams ruled against him for some reason and he is taking his best shot. I dont see the big deal here,but he is about to have a hemmhorage over this. Maybe now that we see the ruling he can go somewhere and get off on it, have his pathetic revenge ,and move on with his life.

If the judge is wrong, she's wrong. She should apologize (or whatever they do), and make sure it doesn't happen again. If I were involved in a case before this judge I certainly would now look a little more closely at the parties involved. I probably would anyway since I don't know much about anything in SoMD outside of Charles.

[Ken King]

Originally Posted by renfred

Now that it has been established by the MD Judicial Ethics Committee that her conduct is not acceptable, and will no longer be tolerated, this new thread contemplates a separate but related topic.

Up until the Judge asked for clarification it was established in Maryland that this type of relationship was not an ethical issue. Now given precedent in other states the ethics committee has changed it's view which does not mean that the judge had done anything wrong but that it is being seen in a differing light. You should not twist things about like you have.

And again what is your real beef with the judge?